Evolutionists are lying about nothing

Genesis 1:1, In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:1 is perhaps the most terse statement ever made on the issue of origins.  Here we see that “in the beginning” (time), God created heaven (space) and the earth (matter).  Time, matter, and space all came into existence suddenly and simultaneously at the command of God.  The full extent of this act is reiterated in other passages.  Psalm 146:6 proclaims that God, “made heaven, and earth, the sea and all that therein is.”  In other words, everything that exists was created by God.  John 1:3 explicitly says, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”  Are you picking up what I’m putting down?  God made literally everything.  We might rearrange things into new ways, like building a castle out of sand, but God made the things.  

But what was there before anything?  What existed before God made all the things?  Creationists sometimes use the fancy, Latin term, Creatio ex nihilo.  When translated, this simply means, “Creation out of nothing.”  God has always existed, of course, but before He made anything, there was nothing.  

The term “nothing” is self explanatory - “no thing.”  Not only was there no matter, there was no space and no time.  There was nothing!  It’s a concept that is hard to grasp, I admit.  How can there be no space?  It sort of makes my head hurt just thinking about it.  Aristotle is alleged to have said, “nothing is what rocks dream about.”  That’s about as succinct a definition as I’ve ever heard.  However, even this very clever definition doesn’t quite work because it starts by saying, “nothing is….”  Philosophers have struggled defining nothing because when you attempt to describe nothing, you start making it sound like it’s something.  

Now, I would never claim to be in the same league as Aristotle, Plato, or even Vizzini, so I’m not going to claim to have THE definition of what nothing is (er,... isn’t?).  I’m just going to say that we all sort of have an idea of what nothing means.  Right?  Maybe not.

In the debate on origins, evolutionists consistently lie about what they mean when they say the universe came from nothing.  Let me give you an example used by the late Stephen Hawking:

Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.  

Do you see what I mean?  He said, “Because there is a law like gravity…”  Am I wrong but isn’t gravity something?  How can the universe create itself from nothing if there is already something like gravity?!  

But Hawking isn’t alone when he redefines nothing to include something.  It is the normal practice of virtually every evolutionist.  When they say “nothing,” they always mean “something.”  Always!  It’s yet another example of evolutionists redefining words in the same way they redefine “evolution,” “science,” “theory,” or even “faith.” (I’ve written about this before, here).  It’s equivocation at its worst.

King Crocoduck is a militant evolutionist that I’ve written about before.  Some years back, he made a video series on YouTube explaining how he believed creationists were arrogant.  Nevermind the irony in his premise, in his first video, he attempted to address the problem of the universe coming from nothing.  Here’s how he described it:

It is useful to define what “nothing” is.  While the philosophical definition might be easy to come up with, we’re dealing with the physical world.  So our definition of nothing has to be concordant with physical reality.  If you have a system to remove all the matter and all the energy, you’ve essentially removed everything that physically exists….  What you’re left with is a vacuum, which is as close to the philosophical definition of nothing as you can get.

King Crocoduck is cheating.  He isn’t starting with nothing; he’s starting with a vacuum.  Time still exists in a vacuum.  Space, physical laws, and even energy still exist in a vacuum.  The only thing really missing from a vacuum is matter so there’s a whole lot of things in KC’s definition of nothing!  But he doesn’t stop there.  He rattles on for about 3 minutes describing the supposed events surrounding the alleged Big Bang, and how energy became hydrogen atoms, which became stars, blah, blah, blah.  Then he concludes his fanciful story with this very telling admission:

“So, in summary, all matter comes from energy and energy – in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics – is eternal.”

Think about what KC has said.  According to him, “nothing” includes space, time, physical laws, and all the energy in the universe!!  It isn’t at all what you, I, or any sane person would consider nothing.  It reminds me of the comedian, Steve Martin's, investment strategy: “OK, you start with $1,000,000....”

In one sense, it’s encouraging that they do this.  It tells me that - deep down - they really know that you can’t start with nothing and get everything.  As a matter of fact, you can’t start with nothing and get anything - not even a single electron.  So, instead, the “scientific” atheists invent exotic theories to explain to the lay public how everything can come from nothing, knowing all along that they don’t really mean “nothing.”  

But I expect unbelievers to lie.  To me, what is more sad, is that people who claim to be Christians, will still believe in evolution.  These compromisers willingly believe the lies spoken by people who proudly admit they exclude God from their theories.  It doesn’t make any sense.

In a previous series on my blog, I addressed 10 points made in a video by a Christian YouTuber called, Inspiring Philosophy.  It was attempting to use Scriptures to claim there were biblical problems for young earth creationists.  One criticism was over the use of the Hebrew word, bara (בָּרָא, Strong's word 1254).  Read this transcript excerpted from the video:

Number 2 is not so much a passage but the use of a Hebrew word, bara. Many young earth creationists believe this word refers to God creating out of nothing and it is used frequently throughout Genesis 1. But looking at how the word is used outside of Genesis 1, implies bara doesn't necessarily mean creation out of nothing. It might not even refer to material creation at all. John Walton has done a full semantic analysis on the word and he points out the word never necessarily means creation out of nothing and there are several times it cannot mean that at all.

Inspiring Philosophy wants to give the impression that God didn't speak everything into existence but, rather, that He shaped and formed an already existing earth. This begs the question: where did the formless, shapeless earth come from? Unless IP is invoking an infinite regress, then at some point in the past, there had to be a creation out of nothing.  The video seems to leave open the possibility that Elohim is not the Creator of the universe. IP only portrays God as continuously shaping already existing matter but never seems to definitively attribute the creation of matter to God.  This is one of the reasons I think theistic evolution borders on heresy!

For whatever reason, evolutionists think it’s more “scientific” to believe nothing created everything than to believe God created everything.  I say it’s foolishness.  To make me believe their theory, they would first have to show me how nothing could create anything.  Next they would have to convince me that nothing creating everything is more reasonable than believing God made everything.  Good luck with that.

Natural laws are properties of the universe. We use them to describe how the universe behaves.  But, if natural laws are properties of the universe, we can't really use them to explain the origin of the universe. Logically speaking, it’s impossible for something to create itself; rather, everything that begins to exist is caused by something outside of itself. To invoke natural laws as some natural explanation for the universe, is like saying nature created nature, which is absurd. So the cause of the universe must be something outside of the universe, something “supernatural” by definition.

Unbelievers are in denial about the religious nature of their beliefs about origins. They are trying to posit a creator with similar attributes that we normally associate with God - like King Crocoduck saying energy is eternal. In other words, they want us to believe there is a supernatural, eternal, uncaused cause for the universe – but it's still not God!  They call this cause, “nothing” but they really mean something.  Evolutionists are lying about nothing!!

The Passion Week: Good Friday

This Easter season, I’ve made a series of posts addressing skeptics’ criticism surrounding the Resurrection.  As we close in on Easter, I want to do a day-by-day detail discussing the events happening during the Passion Week. 

Please keep checking back!

Good Friday

So many things happen on this day that it’s impossible to fit a thorough discussion of them into a single post.  The most important event - by far, of course - is the Crucifixion.  Yet, what do I do about the other events?  Though they may be overshadowed by the Cross, should I omit them when there is still so much to learn from them?  Of all the days of the Passion Week I’ve covered before now, I knew this day would be the most difficult to address adequately.  I just pray in advance that God will guide my thoughts and forgive my clumsy words.

In my western way of thinking, it’s hard to draw a defining line between the events of Thursday and the events on Friday.  The Jewish day begins at sundown, while in the west, the next day starts at midnight.  So in this case, Friday technically began on what some (including me) would call Thursday.  Since I ended my last post with the arrest of Jesus, I will consider the events that followed His arrest to be happening on Friday.  I know it’s complicated, but realize that the events are historical regardless of the day to which we assign them.

The flight of the disciples and Peter’s denial

Jesus had warned His disciples earlier that they would soon fall away, citing Zechariah 13:7.  I will remind you of that conversation:

Matthew 26:31-33, Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.

I’m amused at the pride of Peter who seemed more upset that his loyalty would be questioned rather than amazed at Jesus saying He would rise again!  It’s as though Peter was so offended, that he completely missed the remark.  Of course, Jesus was correct and, just as He had also prophesied, Peter would later deny even knowing Him.

I think we sometimes judge people of the Bible too harshly.  We have the entire revelation of Scripture so, in a sense, we know more than they.  They were living in the times the Bible was being written and probably struggled to understand what was happening.  

In my life of comfort, it’s easy for me to look down on Peter and boast that I would have never denied knowing Him.  I like to think that I would stand fast if I had to face real threats of harm on account of my faith.  But I know that I’ll probably never be in that situation.  In the meanwhile, I know there are some Christians who wouldn’t take their Bibles to work because they’re afraid of what their coworkers might say.  Knowing what I know now, if I were to ever deny knowing Jesus, that would make me 100 times more a coward than Peter!

The trials of Jesus

The Bible tells us that Jesus was taken in front of multiple authorities to face the accusations being made against Him: Annas (John 18:13), Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:57-68), Pilate (Luke 23:2-5), and Herod (Luke 23:6-12).  

When Jesus stood before the Jewish authorities, He spoke nothing in His own defense just as was prophesied in Isaiah 53:7, “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.”

The accusation against Him was made by 2 false witnesses who said He had said He would tear down the Temple and rebuild it in 3 days (Matthew 26:59-61).  Yet even when faced with the lies spoken against Him, Jesus remained silent until the Chief Priest asked, “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God” (Matthew 26:63).  In response, Jesus made His only confession, (v. 64) “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”

I see in this scene a picture of Christ as the Lamb of God.  He was examined by the Jewish priests and shown to be without blemish - worthy of being a sacrifice that would atone for sin.  In this case, it was the sin of the whole world! Praise Him!!

John 19 tells us about Jesus before Pilate.  V. 13 says, “When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.”  The word translated as “judgment seat” here is the Greek word Bema (béma, βῆμα, Strong’s word 968).  It’s the same word used in 2 Corinthians 5:10 where the works of Christians are judged by fire.  

I thought it was interesting that Jesus Himself was once judged before the Bema seat. We know the outcome, of course; He was ultimately sentenced to be crucified. However, note carefully what Pilate said about Him. He said that Jesus was a “just person” who had done no evil. It's significant that Jesus was found to be without guilt. The Bible says the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). If Jesus had been guilty of any sin, He would have been deserving of death. If He had been deserving of death, He could not have given His life as the payment for our sins since He would have had to die for His own sins. But He was innocent.  Before we stand before the Judgment Seat, it was necessary for Him to stand before the judgment seat. It is by His obedience that we are made righteous (Romans 5:19).

Jesus or Barabbas?

While Pilate was trying to find a way to release an innocent man without raising the ire of religious leaders, he resorted to the Roman custom of freeing a condemned man on the Passover (John 18:39-40).  He offered the people a choice: Jesus, the King of the Jews or Barabbas (a murderer).  To his surprise, the people chose Barabbas.

There’s something very interesting about the name, “Barabbas.”  Bar (bar, בַּר, Strong’s word 1247) is an Aramaic word that means “son of.”  It’s used in a few other places in the Bible such as Matthew 16:17 where Jesus refers to Simon as “Simon Barjona” (Simon, son of Jonah). Many people already know that abba (ab, אָב, Strong’s word 1) means “father.”  Barabba, then, means “Son of Abba” or “Son of a father.”  

Wow.  I happen to be the son of a father.  When you think about it, everyone is the child of a father, so Barabbas could have been anyone.  That could have been my name written there!  This paints a wonderful picture of the substitutionary death of Jesus. Each one of us is a Barabbas: all guilty of many sins and all sentenced to die. But we don’t have to die. Jesus – the innocent man who knew no sin – has died in our place. He went to the cross and we were set free.

Jesus on the Cross

There is more that could be said about Good Friday: the scourging, the mocking, the purple robe of Herod, the crown of thorns, the road to Golgatha, the two thieves, the accusation posted over His head, His clothes being divided, and so much else.  However, time and space does not allow them all to be examined.  

Concerning Jesus on the cross, let us examine this passage given in John’s gospel:

John 19:30-35, When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

The last words of Jesus recorded by John were, “It is finished.”  The ultimate goal of Jesus’ incarnation had been accomplished.  The penalty for sin had been paid.  The wrath of the Father had been satisfied.  Our debt has been settled and there is no more need for a sacrifice.  God and sinners are reconciled.  

John tells us that he saw the event with his own eyes and wrote it down for our benefit.  In his own words,  And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.  

Let John’s desire be our desire: that we tell others about Jesus so they, too, might believe!

Some comments on the creation week: Day 1

INTRODUCTION

A while back, I taught a short series on creation for my Sunday school class. It was supposed to last for the summer and I had planned on covering several topics like the role of creation in evangelism, various ways some Christians reinterpret Genesis in order to fit it with popular scientific theories, and how to answer some of the more common objections people raise against creation. One lesson I had planned was to cover the days of the creation week, giving a short description on what happened each day. However, there were so many questions asked and such interest shown that the single lesson I had planned ended up being stretched over 5 lessons.

It was during that time that I realized that, even though the language of Genesis 1 is straightforward and easy to read, many Christians don't stop to consider the full impact of what is happening on each day – not so much from a spiritual perspective but rather from a physical one. To that end, I thought it would be worthwhile to have a short series of posts, each covering one day of the creation week. This isn't meant to be a treaty on the subject. Instead, I hope to simply open a few eyes to the realization that what is being described were real events that literally shaped the world.

Because they were real events, understanding the days of the creation week helps us understand science. Rather than reinterpreting Scripture in order to make it fit with secular views of our origins, we can use the clear meaning of the words in Genesis to gain an appreciation of the physical processes that were occurring.

As I go through this series, I may mention popular reinterpretations of Scripture but they won't be my focus. I've written before about some of the most common ways Christians interpret Genesis in order to reconcile the Bible with science. In this series, I won't spend much time rebutting alternative interpretations but will present the most obvious meaning (as determined by a plain reading of the text) as the correct meaning.

It's my plan to spend a single post addressing each day of the creation week. The only exception to this might be the sixth day, where I may spend an extra post covering some of the events described in Genesis 2. I'm also going to try to post twice per week so this won't be stretched out over months. Even so, some of these posts will be longer than usual.  I apologize in advance and only say that I will do my best to make them worth the while to read.

If you’re ready, let’s get started!

DAY ONE

Genesis 1:1-5, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

When some people think of the first day of the Creation Week, they only think of God creating light.  How many times, after someone changes a light bulb, have you heard them say, “And God said, ‘Let there be light”?  It’s become rather cliché and it’s certainly no longer clever.  Even so, perhaps this is why some people only remember the creation of light.  

We can see here there is actually a lot more going on. Let's break it down, verse by verse:

v. 1a, In the beginning

First we can see when God created - “in the beginning.” We have to ask, “the beginning of what?”  The answer seems obvious but we seldom stop to think about it. This is the beginning of time! 

Critics have sometimes suggested the universe is “infinitely old.”  They want us to believe that, somehow, time doesn’t have a beginning.  There is a host of problems with believing in an infinitely old universe but I’ll have to save that discussion for another post.  For now, I’ll just say that time is a property of this universe and it has passed unceasingly since the creation.  In Genesis 1:1, we can see when the clock started ticking.  

v. 1b, God created the heaven and the earth.

The term “heaven” can have several meanings depending on its context. It sometimes refers to the sky and other times to the abode of God. Here, I believe “heaven” clearly refers to space. Before God created everything, He needed a place to put it. Space isn't something that always existed and God simply put the earth and stars into it. Space itself was created. Before this moment there was no space.

Immediately after creating space (or perhaps simultaneously with it), God creates the earth. We know that the sun, moon, and stars are created later so, at this moment, the earth is the only matter in the entire universe.

We can see from this short, simple verse the very profound and fundamental creative act of God. He began the creation in a very logical and orderly way. He created time, space, and matter.

v. 2a, And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 The Hebrew word translated here as “without form” is tôhû (תּהוּ) which, from what I’ve read, is a seldom used word – not just in the Bible but in Hebrew in general. We're not entirely sure what is meant by the term and Brown-Driver-Briggs says the primary meaning is hard to grasp (that is, it's hard to grasp the meaning; not that it means “hard to grasp”).  Since I can’t read Hebrew, I looked up the Greek word used in the Septuagint.  It literally means, “unseen,” possibly a reference to the fact that it was dark.

Certainly the earth lacked any features. There were no mountains, no valleys, and certainly no living things. There was not even land. The wording here creates a distinct impression namely that the earth then was empty and did not resemble the present earth in any way.

We see from the last sentence that the earth initially was only water.  We see that dry land will be created later.  So the biblical account is in stark contrast to secular theories which assert that the earth was initially hot rock.  

We also learn from this verse that God was actively involved in the creation. Yes, He spoke and it happened but He did not speak from a distance; He was there, hovering over the face of the waters. This is not a case of God nudging the universe in a certain direction and then letting physical laws take over.

v. 3, And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 

As mentioned above, many people seem to think the creation of light marked the beginning of the creation. We have seen that much has already happened before this point. The first day began in darkness and now it is light so the day is about ½ over.

The Bible doesn't mention the source of this light. We know that it cannot be the sun since the sun will not be created until day 4. Some have suggested that God Himself was the light but I am skeptical of that claim; if God were the light, then where was the light just a few minutes earlier? The Bible does attest that in the new creation, there will be no more need of the sun because the Lamb will be the light (Revelation 21:23). However, Revelation 21:25 tells us that there will neither be any more night so we cannot draw an exact parallel between this light and the light of the Lamb in Revelation. Since the Bible is silent on the source of this light, we cannot be dogmatic in our speculations. Suffice it to say this was a temporary source that God used to mark the passage of days until the sun was created on day 4.

It's interesting that God created a light that specifically is not the sun. Even the ancients understood that the sun gave light so if Genesis were truly the product of human imagination, it's rather incredible to believe someone would think to separate the creation of light from the creation of the sun. Some might argue this is evidence of a divine revelation for Scripture.

v. 4a, And God saw the light, that it was good:

Several times during the creation week, God pauses to reflect on His creation. Each time, He sees that what has been created is “good.” The fact that God continuously affirms that each created thing is “good” flies in the face of theistic evolution (TE). According to TE, the world was created over billions of years of death and destruction. According to this belief, the world has been bad, bad, bad, on its way to finally being, “very good.” The Bible attests over and over that everything was initially “good.”

But what does it mean to be “good”?  Here’s a good thought exercise: Ask someone to explain what makes something “wrong” without appealing to any higher power.  Most people find it very difficult.  They usually only list examples of things that are wrong (i.e., something is wrong if it’s unfair, unjust, or immoral).  That doesn’t really explain what makes something wrong.  Why is it wrong to be unfair, for example?

I once heard Dinesh D’Souza give the best explanation; he said, “Something is wrong if it’s not the way it ought to be.”  In a universe without God, there is no way things “ought to be” - there is only the way things are.  However, God created the universe the way it ought to be!  The light is good because God commanded that it be part of His perfect universe.  

Are you ready for a dose of irony?  Good and evil only exist because God exists!  

v. 4b-5a, and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

Many people are aware of the Jewish practice of demarking days.  While most westerners believe the next day begins at midnight, Jews believe the next day begins at sundown.  The Sabbath (Saturday), for example, begins at sundown on Friday night.  This practice goes all the way back to the first day which began in darkness, then became light.  It’s seldom mentioned now, but this method of reckoning is further evidence that the ancient Jews believed the days of Genesis to be literal, ordinary days.

Moving on, there are some other things we can glean from this verse.  The presence of night and day strongly suggests that the earth has already begun rotating. Therefore, we can assume that physical laws – like gravity – have also already been created. Nobel laureate, Dr. Stephen Hawking, once said that because physical laws like gravity exist, then the universe could create itself out of nothing. It's rather laughable that such an intelligent person could make such a contradictory statement. How could there be any physical laws before the universe was created?

Physical laws are only our descriptions of the way matter behaves. Matter exhibits gravity. Just like matter cannot create itself, neither can gravity create itself. Science can only presuppose gravity existed in the creation; secular scientists really have no more explanation for the origin of gravity than they do for the ultimate origin of matter. They can only appeal to poofery.

v. 5b, And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Each day of the six creative days is punctuated by this phrase. Since God created light on the first day, we can know how much time has passed. It was an evening and a morning – an ordinary day. The presence of the term “evening and morning” leave little wiggle room for anyone wishing to reinterpret the word “day.”

God could have created the entire universe in a single moment. God could have stretched the creation out over billions of years. Yet for whatever reason, God chose to create the universe in the way He did – over six ordinary days.